Powering the Future - discussion

[Pete Hanlin]

Between the past two issues of Popular Science and this month's issue of National Geographic, the issue of how to power the future (and maintain the environment in the process) has been summarized pretty well for anyone interested. In particular, Popular Science's article on how to scrub CO2 from the environment was pretty interesting- since it addresses reality (i.e., we are going to continue burning fossil fuels- how do we do so with less impact on the environment).

The article in this month's National Geographic is a sound look at our alternatives. To sum...

Solar- Still really expensive, but if a cheaper way were to be conceived it could become the mainstream alternative to fossil fuels (i.e., the same message I was hearing 20 years ago in high school).

Wind- Europe is already generating 20% of its power from the wind. Of course, no one wants a mill in their back yard (or even off the coast if it messes up the view).

Nuclear- China is turning on to nuclear power, while the US has been pretty much stagnant since 1979 (TMI). Uranium is not an unlimited resource, but new ways of utilizing other elements are under development.

Hydrogen- Unless nuclear power is used, hydrogen basically creates more pollution than fossil fuels (because the energy expenditure used to isolate the hydrogen is greater than the energy it produces, using fossil fuels to create hydrogen causes more pollution than if we just burned the fossil fuels straightaway).

Anyway, what are your opinions? Personally, I think fossil fuels are here for a long time (unless there is a breakthrough in alternative power). Wind power sounds good to me, and I don't mind looking at the windmills. I grew up 5 miles from TMI- including the event in 1979- and I still think nuclear is an extremely viable option. Solar seems to be a non-starter... its always "just around the corner."

Mainly, I would just like to see some "reality checks." Such as:
Reality Check #1.) Fossil fuels are increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere- the long term impact is probably harder to predict than we are led to believe by the environmentalists, and probably more significant than we are led to believe by the other side.
Reality Check #2.) We should be working to make fossil fuels as clean as possible, because- like it or not- we are and will continue to consume a LOT of fossil fuels.
Reality Check #3.) From a nationalistic standpoint, we should also be tapping into our own supplies (i.e., sink some wells around the Artic Circle and give up all the grandstanding about caribou).
Reality Check #4.) We can't rely on fossil fuels forever- we'll run out of air before we run out of fuel.
Reality Check #5.) Hydrogen doesn't make sense without nuclear power. The fact is, in America your hydrogen car is causing more overall pollution than my Ford Expedition- get over it and accept that the evil atom packs a lot of power without the CO2. As for you folks in Utah, if you can find a better place to bury the waste, let us know...
Reality Check #6.) People use energy- and developing countries will use a lot more of it in the future. We need to develop alternatives, but every alternative has its drawbacks- get over it! If you don't like the idea of smog, you may have to put up with a nuclear reactor or a wind mill in your neighborhood. There has to be compromise, however. California is constantly requiring more power- but no one there seems willing to build a power plant of ANY kind.

Well, that's obviously my opinion- what about yours? Lunch break is over now, so its back to work!

[chm2023]

We are more dependent on Saudi Arabia for oil than we were 10 years ago--think this has any bearing on how we turn a blind eye to their support of terrorism? Is this a rhetorical question? Absolutely.

The price of a barrel has tripled since 1999. The current energy bill does nothing to encourage conservation, particularly galling that it does not address the one relatively painless step--better mileage from autos--galling as it is doable and we know it works.

You know I dislike Bush but I have never been one to see a dark conspiracy of oil men--I may have to reconsider this!!! (The bill also provides billions in tax cuts to encourage further exploration and distribution--huh???? Check out Exxon/Mobil's financials and tell me how these guys need a tax break!!! And if you don't see a direct connect between their windfall profits and the price at the pump, you're a better (wo)man than I am!!!)

What to do? Conservation by fiat, nuclear power, research, research, research--we have to rid ourselves of this oil jones.

[hcjilson]

Currently we're facing the wind power issue on Cape Cod. The wind advocates want to put a "wind farm" consisting of a few hundred 460 foot tall wind turbines in Nantucket Sound, about 12 miles out. The majority of folks around here are against it because of esthetic reasons. They're afraid of an eyesore that will affect the tourist based economy.(with good reason)
The jury is out as far as I am concerned but the arguments on both sides are compelling as Pete so artfully pointed out.

I think its clear that we have to shift away from our reliance on imported fossil fuel. The galling thing is that we established those industries, and now we're being held hostage.We've created our own monster. In order to reduce our dependence we will have to have alternatives. When considering them, don't forget water power. We have 2 tides occuring twice a day which aren't being used at all, to say nothing of the rivers within our boundaries.

Great subject for a thread.

hj

[EyeManFla]

I'd put one of those wind farms on Capitol Hill. There is enough hot air up there the power the Nation for the next 10 generations!

[coda]

Great topic Pete!

I'd like to take on a couple of the 'reality checks' first.

3: Drilling in ANWR buys us almost nothing, 10 B barrels tops, enough for a few days. Further domestic exploration for oil is likely to be of limited value. Thankfully we have almostly mind boggeling massive coal reserves which, with so called 'clean coal' technology have significant potential (did you know that 50% of all our energy comes from coal already?).

5: It's nice to see someone else exposing the 'hydrogen economy' hype for what it is, smoke and mirrors. I'm not sure I agree on nuclear being the obvious route to clean hydrogen but I don't disagree either. There are a number of technologies on the horizon which seem very attractive including photocatalytic splitting of water into H2 and O2, this is very clean and uses only sunlight and catalyists (efficiency is still low). You can read about another here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8420441/

I like the idea of geothermal but I don't know enough about it to discuss it's downsides.

One of the things you've missed in all of this is efficiency. The current administration loves to discount the value of increased efficiency by saying something along the lines of "increasing efficiency can't solve the energy crisis" but the truth is it'll do get us a heck of a lot closer (by orders of magnitude) than drilling in ANWR. We've let the CAFE standards sit nearly stagnant since the 70's. Very, very few homes and businesses use low E glass (though double and triple paned glass are quite popular). Dare I mention that public transportation, when done right, can be a significant energy saver as well?

[Pete Hanlin]

Thanks for the insightful input, Coda. You have correctly put your finger on one of our particularly abundant natural resources (coal- which the Bush Administration has been promoting- especially "clean" coal facilities). Of course, the folks in Centralia (and dozens of other "hot spots") might have a word or two of caution for those wanting to turn to coal for the solution.

I'm all for conservation- so tell me how we accomplish it. In the Dallas area (as with many metro areas) we have HOV lanes to encourage car pooling. My guess is they are simply used by people who would have had more than one person in the car anyway. Do we make gasoline a "sin product?" We already tax the heck out of it, and any attempt to levy further taxes is going to impact the cost of goods and services (and therefore, the economy).

I find the objections to wind farming to be almost humorous- especially since they often come from the same folks that decry fossil fuels. A wind farm 12 miles out is too close? Let's see, we don't like fossil fuels, but we also want to protest wind and nuclear power. We despise the fact that we're so dependent on foreign oil, but raise a holy war against any attempt to drill domestically (if we're unwilling to explore the Arctic Circle, I'm assuming anywhere else is off limits as well).

I'm not trying to be partisan here, so pack away all the bile and vile for the administration (BTW, more has been invested since 2000 in wind power for the US than during both Clinton admins combined). I think both sides are full of it (including the lobbyists that incorporated ethanol into the energy bill). As long as we have one side claiming that CO2 isn't damaging the environment and another side putting out sensationalistic garbage like the "Day After Tomorrow," we're not going to make any progress. As I recall, Governor Jeb Bush nixed the idea of wells off Florida's coast over concerns that a disaster like the Valdez could destroy tourism on Florida's beaches (apparently, no one- not even the President's brother- wants rigs in their back yard).

Coincidentally, there are studies ongoing to determine if massive windfarms don't alter weather patterns (seems unlikely, but supposedly there's some hard data suggesting they do).

Regarding water power, if a windmill placed 12 miles out is unacceptable, I can't imagine a device to capture energy from tides is going to "float" any better (sorry for the pun).

Grab the wind, split that atom, dig up some coal, figure out ways to harness CO2, market the savings that energy conserving home and auto features provide, and utilize our domestic oil resources... That's the Pete energy policy.

[chip anderson]

Believe to not the power of the future will be magnets.

[rbaker]

I recently heard an interesting comment concerning energy conservation. If all of the motor vehicles in the USA were to magically be changed into hybrids tonight, we would be back to consuming today’s quantity of gasoline in only six years.

I have a good friend who is a retired executive of Chevron who still keeps his finger on the pulse of the petroleum business. His comments reflect the fact that we will run out of refining capacity long before we run out of petroleum. Another interesting fact is that the oft quoted price per barrel that we hear on the news (Yikes! $64.00 a barrel) is not the price of a barrel of oil on the open market . . . it’s the price that investors are buying it for on the futures market. Chevron can buy a barrel of sweet crude today for $48.75.

Beyond the next twenty five years, the fossil fuel era, our long term energy needs will be met primarily by nuclear power in the short term and fusion power down he road. We will see hydrogen as the fuel of choice in transportation due to it being an inexpensive byproduct of splitting and fusing atoms.

Geothermal and wind and hydro can be locally viable resources. Iceland is blessed with geothermal and many residents get their homes heated for free. And, who knows, someday a couple of great big mother wind generator may sit in “Splash” Kennedy’s front yard.

[rinselberg]

I find the objections to wind farming to be almost humorous- especially since they often come from the same folks that decry fossil fuels. A wind farm 12 miles out is too close?

What if the wind farm consists of Flying Electrical Generators, powered by high altitude winds at 15,000 to 35,000 feet above the ground?

SkyWindPower Corporation is testing this concept.


Flying Electrical Generator prototype.

Calculations show that by reserving less than one four hundredth of U.S. air space, at remote locations far away from airline routes, all U.S. electrical energy needs could be met.

One four hundredth of U.S. airspace is far below the amount of airspace from which civil aviation is already restricted.

Four rotor Flying Electrical Generator: Artist's concept.

SkyWindPower Corporation website
http://www.skywindpower.com/ww/index.htm

PROBLEM SOLVED!

[Blake]

I say we set up millions of exercise bikes as mini-generators across the country. We could put the able-bodied unemployed to work as "energy production specialists" in lieu of a gov't handout, and the more affluent could do it as a community service - and all the while we'd be getting fit!

"Look out Osama, we don't need your oil AND we're in shape to kick your... hang on, pizza's here!" :)

[ziggy]

Solar on a grand scale is not practical, but I wonder if it would help if homes had smaller units mounted on the roof. If it did nothing more than heat the water it would have to make a cut it the overall energy useage.

[coda]

Since Dick (and to a lesser extent Pete) discounted efficiency as a reasonable approach please allow me this rebuttal.

Rolling back our gas consumption by six years is massive. By comparison if all the oil extractable from ANWR (this is using the high estimate of 10 B barrels, most industry estimates are actually around 4 B barrels), this would satisfy our petroleum needs for less than 500 days. More importantly if "efficiency" is deemed to be a nationally significant technology advances will be made considerably more quickly. Efficiency also encompases a lot more than transportation (which currently accounts for only about 25% of our energy consumption). For example:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8852127/site/newsweek/ (probably not a great technology for Portland or Pittsburg but not bad for places with more sun)

Industrial/commercial efficiency is more important than residential efficiency by a long shot. Did you know that most office buildings above a certain size (I believe it's 50,000 square feet but it's been a long time since I read this statistic) run their AC units 10 months out of the year, even in colder climes like Boston? Why is this? Because of the poor efficiency of lighting and other electronics (put your hand behind your computer, hot aint it?) wasting energy as heat. Also because many large commercial buildings use in efficient insulation (particuarly including windows) a lot of inpinging solar radiation is, unfortunately captured by the buildings.

This entirely discounts our woefully old electricity generating facilities. Amazingly there are electrical generating plants more than 50 years old still in opperation. Even a relativly modest improvement in efficiency (say 5 to 10 percent) would result in massive energy savings (disclaimer, most electricity is generated from coal).

The best thing about increasing efficiency is that it doesn't require finding or developing a new new source of energy it simply reduces the amount we need on a daily basis.

But how do we get there? Well, as I mentioned before mandating continually increasing CAFE standards and expanding them to include include light trucks and SUVs is a great way to start. Beyond that providing tax incentives to both residential and industrial users to improve efficency is a good next step. There is a certain segment of the population who decries this as 'governmental interference' and then talks about the 'cost'. Well, I know I'm paying through the nose for the second war over oil in Iraq (as I did for the first) both through direct costs (i.e. taxes to pay for the war) and indirect costs (increased oil prices). More than that I believe U.S. energy independence is a NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE and if that isn't a place for the government to be involved in then I don't know what is.

A good link on energy efficiency is: http://www.americanenergyindependenc...fficiency.html

[rinselberg]

Designing the Future
In a new interview series, NEWSWEEK talks to a leading ecological architect whose goal is nothing less than eliminating waste and pollution.

May 16 issue - Imagine buildings that generate more energy than they consume and factories whose waste water is clean enough to drink. William McDonough has accomplished these tasks and more. Architect, industrial designer and founder of McDonough Braungart Design Chemistry in Charlottesville, Va., he's not your traditional environmentalist. Others may expend their energy fighting for stricter environmental regulations and repeating the mantra "reduce, reuse, recycle." McDonough's vision for the future includes factories so safe they need no regulation, and novel, safe materials that can be totally reprocessed into new goods, so there's no reason to scale back consumption (or lose jobs). In short, he wants to overhaul the Industrial Revolution—which would sound crazy if he weren't working with Fortune 500 companies and the government of China to make it happen. The recipient of two U.S. presidential honors and the National Design Award, McDonough is the former dean of architecture at the University of Virginia and co-chair of the China-U.S. Center for Sustainable Development. He spoke in New York recently with NEWSWEEK's Anne Underwood.

If you want to read more ....
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7773650/site/newsweek/

[Spexvet]

I read a looooooong time ago that cars would only need a few modifications to run on alcohol, and the alcohol can be made from virtually any plant matter (renewable), distilled using solar stills (virtually free power), and is relatively clean.

see:

http://running_on_alcohol.tripod.com/

http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_...earth/me1.html

http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_...earth/me2.html

[Spexvet]

I wonder if there's some cause and effect between eliminating the national 55mph speed limit and higher gas prices?

[rinselberg]

Regarding water power, if a windmill placed 12 miles out is unacceptable, I can't imagine a device to capture energy from tides is going to "float" any better (sorry for the pun).

These offshore wave energy converters may raise fewer objections than an offshore wind farm. This is what a "wave farm" looks like when you are right on top of it. They are installing these in Portugal at a distance of 5 kilometers offshore. From a vantage point on shore, 5 kilometers away -- I think the wave farm would be just about invisible.



Ocean Power Delivery Ltd -- Offshore Wave Energy Conversion
http://www.oceanpd.com/

[coda]

They are installing these in Portugal at a distance of 5 kilometers offshore.

They're installing a prototype system off Ocean Beach in San Francisco. The prototype should be operational by the end of the year (if memory serves).

[rinselberg]

“There’s just no silver bullet here," said Ryan Wiser, a scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory who specializes in the economics of renewable energy. "There is no singular technology — renewables, nuclear, what have you — that’s going to replace fossil fuels in the near future. We’re going to be talking about weaning ourselves from fossil fuels for many, many decades to come. There’s no way around it.”

MSNBC analyzes the many obstacles to reducing the world's dependence on petroleum.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7549530/

[Pete Hanlin]

Coda,
I certainly do not mean to disregard increased efficiency as one way to ease both our effect on the environment and our dependence of foreign sources of energy. I believe the problem is going to be implementing said efficiency.

Your point on offices is quite well taken. I used to leave the office in St. Pete later than most, and I would make a point of turning off four or five monitors that were on "screensaver" mode each night. One has to wonder how many megawatts of power are consumed each year just for the purpose of displaying a renderings of artificial aquariums and flying toasters to empty offices across the nation all night.

Regarding the Far Northern Coastal Plain of ANWR, the USGS estimates there is slightly more than 10 billion barrels of oil to be harvested. Daily production is estimated to be 1.4 million barrels a day (a rate that could be sustained for approximately 20 years). To put that into perspective, the entire State of Texas produces just over 1 million barrels a day- the entire state of Alaska (without ANWR) is only 900,000 barrels/day. Claiming that the field could only provide "500 days" of oil is a tad misleading (well, its almost entirely misleading), since that claim assumes the entire nation would use oil solely from this one region. Even if this were possible, if we could import zero oil for a period of 18 months, the effect on the trade deficit would be incredible.

As it stands, the US consumes far more oil on a daily basis than could be pumped (or more importantly- refined) from ANWR- so the effects of this oil would span two decades. The oil is there, it is on US soil, to say it is in a remote area is accurate even under the strictest definition of remote, and it has already been agreed that the oil there should be harvested (by the Carter Administration in 1980).

Put simply, we need to figure out ways to conserve- that is beyond arguing. We should also be harvesting our domestic natural resources- especially a field as large and remote as ANWR- that is also quite beyond rational debate.

[Bev Heishman]

Wind power is being used in a lot of places. On the way to Somerset PA just off the turnpike I-76 there are many huge windmills. Great for us but apparently a mega problem for birds and at night, bats, whom are killed by the thousands. Of course there are many ranting about this.

I feel it is better than humans whom are becoming more & more allergic/asthmatic than ever from pollutants such as fossil fuels and by products daily. Or again we could have nuclear disasters such as Chernobyl and then near misses like TMI.

On an another note one of my favorite shows HBO's Six Feet Under just had a "Green Funeral" for a lead character. I have been pondering this and am going to see if it is available.

[Pete Hanlin]

I saw an episode of Six Feet Under the other day (the first one I've seen). One of the characters died of a brain aneurism (sp?) or something- really odd kinda show. Intriguing, but definitely off the beaten trail!

[rbaker]

I certainly do not discount conservation as a factor in out future energy picture. As a matter of fact I am a strong proponent of conservation. Toward this end I removed the 100 watt bulb in my garage and replaced it with a 75 watt. Most businesses in this country are becoming very energy efficient. If your company spends $500,000.00 a month on electricity achieving a 10% reduction is not small potatoes. In fact, one of the main reasons that the present high energy prices have not been the harbinger of a recession is the fact that American industry is one of the most energy efficient in the world.

Conservation will be an important element, however, not a major element in the future energy equation. Just look at the record. It would be hard to cite a case where conservation has resulted in a long term net energy reduction. For example, we reduced the fuel consumption of our vehicle fleet and we are now consuming more gasoline than before.
I am confident that we will have abundant energy in the future. This will result from the efforts of sound science and engineering, certainly not from politicians, regulators and government agencies.

[Cindy Hamlin]

Pete,

Not being facetious, but I once read somewhere that this was a theory about how the dinosaurs became extinct.

Reality Check #1.) Fossil fuels are increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere- the long term impact is probably harder to predict than we are led to believe by the environmentalists, and probably more significant than we are led to believe by the other side.

That the CO2 from their flatulence built up. I swear, I did read it. I will try to Google it.

[Robert Martellaro]

Imagine clean water and air, food and jobs for all of our planets citizens, with enough power to sustain a growing technological civilization for the foreseeable future. To achieve this goal I believe that we no choice but to invest in research to develop fusion power, on the scale of what we did with fission research in the 1940's, a Manhattan project so to speak. It may take trillions if not tens of trillions of USD's, but once we have harnessed the power of the sun we will have the resources of the entire solar system to draw on. The alternatives are, once we run out of oil, a combination of fission and coal, supplemented with solar, hydro, wind and other renewable sources of energy, resulting in great quantities of radioactive waste, pollution/climate change/crop failures, and negative growth and increased poverty. Not a pleasant future to say the least.

[Leo Hadley Jr]

I found this story about a couple of guys in Tampa Bay...


Hydrogen Technology Applications, Inc.
4707 140th Avenue North, Suite 116
Clearwater, Florida 33762
Phone: 1-727-531-5979
Fax: 1-727-531-3670

Mr. Denny Klein
President
Mr. Peter Dominici
Vice President of Finance & Information





Clearwater resident Denny Klein converted his Ford Escort to run on a
special water and electricity mixture. Electrolysis is the process that
Klein has harnessed, and he uses it to fuel his car.
He has patented the his process of converting H20 to HHO--producing a gas
that combines the atomic power of hydrogen with the chemical stability of
water.
As it burns as fuel it turns right back to water, in fact you can see the
H20 running out of the car.
He initially designed his Electrolysis machine for cutting metal, but he
thought of a more practical purpose when driving his car one day.
His prototype is a 1994 Ford Escort that can run on water or as a water
gasoline hybrid.
He took it for a test drive and a 100 mile trip used about four ouces of
water.
He and partner Pete Domeneci are using his hydrogen patents for
negotiations with the US Government and at least one US automaker.
Members of Congress invited Klein to demonstrate his technology. His
company, Hydrogen Technologies, is currently developing a Hummer of the US
military that can run on the same hybrid technology as his Escort.

The Technology
A unique type of
hydrogen/oxygen gas mixture
Our technology centers on the ability to generate a unique type of
hydrogen/oxygen gas mixture (a "unique gas", which we call "Klein/HHO" gas)
on demand from a lightweight, compact machine that uses the water
electrolysis process as its underlying technology basis.
This unique gas is infinitely stable until it comes in contact with a select
target media. Then it sublimates, causing a molecular surface exchange of
certain elements, reacting with such excitation as to cause temperatures of
up to 10,0000 F, the temperature of our Sun's surface, which is currently
the limits of our ability to measure.
The ability to create this stable, unique gas on demand from a water
electrochemical generator is of great strategic importance, especially
because (1) it offers a workable energy level per pound of fuel that is
ten-to-twelve times that of gasoline; (2) when combusted/ignited, it causes
no hydrocarbon effluents such as NOX, nitrites, nitrates, etc., and (3) its
by-product from combustion is pure, environmentally-friendly water.